 |
|
|
 |
|
Posted on 01/26/2002 1:14:46 PM PST by Paul Ross
The Cross vs. the Swastika
|
|
|
|
|
The Cross vs. the Swastika |
I vividly remember a high school conversation with a friend I’d known since we were eight. I’d pointed out that Hitler was essentially a pagan, not a Christian, but my friend absolutely refused to believe it. No matter how much evidence I presented, he kept insisting that Nazi Germany was an extension of Christianity, acting out its age-old vendetta against the Jews. Not that he spoke from any personal study of the subject; he just knew. He’d heard it so many times it’d become an article of faith — one of those things “everyone knows.”
Flash forward 25 years. A few weeks ago my last column (http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000528.html) refuted a number of familiar charges against Christianity, including the Christianity-created-Nazism shibboleth. Even though I only skimmed the subject, I thought the evidence I cited would’ve been hard to ignore; I quoted, for example, Hitler’s fond prediction that he would “destroy Christianity” and replace it with “a [pagan] religion rooted in nature and blood.” But sure enough, I still heard from people who couldn’t buy that.
Well, sometimes myths die hard. But this one took a hit in early January, at the hands of one Julie Seltzer Mandel, a Jewish law student at Rutgers whose grandmother survived internment at Auschwitz.
A couple of years ago Mandel read through 148 bound volumes of papers gathered by the American OSS (the World War II-era predecessor of the CIA) to build the case against Nazi leaders on trial at Nuremberg. Now she and some fellow students are publishing what they found in the journal Law and Religion(www.lawandreligion.com), which Mandel edits. The upshot: a ton of evidence that Hitler sought to wipe out Christianity just as surely as he sought to wipe out the Jews.
The first installment (the papers are being published in stages) includes a 108-page OSS outline, “The Persecution of the Christian Churches.” It’s not easy reading, but it’s an enlightening tale of how the Nazis — faced with a country where the overwhelming majority considered themselves Christians — built their power while plotting to undermine and eradicate the churches, and the people’s faith.
Before the Nazis came to power, the churches did hold some views that overlapped with the National Socialists — e.g., they opposed communism and resented the Versailles treaty that ended World War I by placing heavy burdens on defeated Germany. But, the OSS noted, the churches “could not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State.” Thus, “conflict was inevitable.”
From the start of the Nazi movement, “the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement,” said Baldur von Scvhirach, leader of the group that would come to be known as Hitler youth. But “explicitly” only within partly ranks: as the OSS stated, “considerations of expedience made it impossible” for the movement to make this public until it consolidated power.
So the Nazis lied to the churches, posing as a group with modest and agreeable goals like the restoration of social discipline in a country that was growing permissive. But as they gained power, they took advantage of the fact that many of the Protestant churches in the largest body (the German Evangelical Church) were government-financed and administered. This, the OSS reported, advanced the Nazi plan “to capture and use church organization for their own purposes” and “to secure the elimination of Christian influences in the German church by legal or quasi legal means.”
The Roman Catholic Church was another story; its administration came from Rome, not within German borders, and its relationship with the Nazis in the 1920s had been bitter. So Hitler lied again, offering a treaty pledging total freedom for the Catholic church, asking only that the church pledge loyalty to the civil government and emphasize citizens’ patriotic duties — principles which sounded a lot like what the church already promoted. Rome signed the treaty in 1933.
Only later, when Hitler assumed dictatorial powers, did his true policy toward both Catholics and Protestants become apparent. By 1937, Pope Pius XI denounced the Nazis for waging “a war of extermination” against the church, and dissidents like the Lutheran clergyman Martin Niemoller openly denounced state control of Protestant churches. The fiction of peaceful coexistence was rapidly fading: In the words of The New York Times (summarizing OSS conclusions), “Nazi street mobs, often in the company of the Gestapo, routinely stormed offices in Protestant and Catholic churches where clergymen were seen as lax in their support of the regime.”
The Nazis still paid enough attention to public perception to paint its church critics as traitors: the church “shall have not martyrs, but criminals,” an official said. But the campaign was increasingly unrestrained. Catholic priests found police snatching sermons out of their hands, often in mid-reading. Protestant churches issued a manifesto opposing Nazi practices, and in response 700 Protestant pastors were arrested. And so it went.
Not that Christians took this lying down; the OSS noted that despite this state terrorism, believers often acted with remarkable courage. The report tells, for example, of how massive public demonstrations protested the arrests of Lutheran pastors, and how individuals like pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (hanged just days before the war ended) and Catholic lay official Josef Mueller joined German military intelligence because that group sought to undermine the Nazis from within.
There is, of course, plenty of room for legitimate criticism of church leaders and laymen alike for getting suckered early on, and for failing to put up enough of a fight later. Yet we should approach such judgments with due humility. As Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett write in their book Christianity on Trial (to repeat a quote used in my last column), “It is easy for those who do not live under a totalitarian regime to expect heroism from those who do, but it is an expectation that will often be disappointed. . . . it should be less surprising that the mass of Christians were silent than that some believed strongly enough to pay for their faith with their lives.”
At any rate, my point is hardly to defend every action (or inaction) on the part of German churches. In fact, I think their failures bring us valuable lessons, not least about the dangers of government involvement in — and thus power over — any churches.
But the notion that the church either gave birth to Hitler or walked hand-in-hand with him as a partner is, simply, slander. Hitler himself knew better. “One is either a Christian or a German,” he said. “You can’t be both.”
This is something to bear in mind when some folk on the left trot out their well-worn accusation that conservative Christians are “Nazis” or “fascists.” It’s also relevant to answering the charge made by the likes of liberal New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: “History teaches that when religion is injected into politics — the Crusades, Henry VIII, Salem, Father Coughlin, Hitler, Kosovo — disaster follows.”
But it’s not Christianity that’s injected evil into the world. In fact, the worst massacres in history have been committed by atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and virtual pagans (Hitler). Christians have amassed their share of sins over the past 2,000 years, but the great murderers have been the church’s enemies, especially in the past century. It’s long past time to set the historical record straight. 
The complete text of this article is available at http://www.boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000541.html
Thanks for bringing that up. Hominid fossils.
Creationists Trying To Get Their Story Straight on the Hominid Fossils. You'd think anyone can tell an ape from a man if that's all there is in the fossil record, right? Why does one creationist call a fossil "An ape! Just an ape!" when another creationist calls the same fossil "A man! Just a man!"
Yeah, you don't even have the guts to debate "Miss Cleo".
She knew you were gonna say that...
A complete A. lithographica skeleton (several exist) here, wrist/hand parts clearly visible. (The idea of anyone lying about this and getting away with it is ridiculous, BTW. You can't have a conspiracy that everyone has to be in on.)
I haven't found a hoatzin skeleton on the web, but the idea of lying about the skeleton of a living creature is pretty breathtaking. At any rate, if there's a conspiracy to fabricate the evidence, lots of people are in on it.
Well I guess there's no denyin'
I'm just a dandylion
Widdout dat vim an' voive . . .
But I'd be bold in my habits,
No more a scared a rabbits,
If I only had da noive!
Evolutionists are convinced that birds evolved from dinosaurs. http://www.khaoyai-garden-lodge.de/English/Birds/birds.html: Birds, like fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, are vertebrates. Today, we are sure that birds evolved from dinosaurs, which had strong legs for fast running.In China, they found many examples of fossils across the evolution of birds. Some of them exhibited jaws and teeth, while others showed bills that exists in birds today. The fossil named Confuciusornis sanctus - in about chicken size - was the first fossil of a bird that had the ability to fly over longer distances.
One little problem. Confuciusornis sanctus actually "proves" according to other evolutionists that modern birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs:
DINOSAURS PROBABLY WEREN'T ANCESTORS OF MODERN BIRDS
LAWRENCE - Two University of Kansas researchers report that fossils from northeastern China may counter the theory that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. The findings will be published in the Nov. 15 issue of the prestigious journal Science.
The fossil birds from the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous periods, about 140 million years ago, suggest a long avian history in the Jurassic, according to a team of researchers that includes Larry D. Martin, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the KU Natural History Museum, and Zhonghe Zhou, a student of Martin's. The other scientists on the team are Lianhai Hou of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
The authors suggest that the ancestor of modern birds arose during the Middle Jurassic period or earlier. "This exacerbates one of the most obvious conundrums facing the theory of dinosaurian origin of birds," they write. The dinosaurs thought to be most like birds are mainly from the Late Cretaceous period, about 76 million years more recent than the oldest fossil bird yet found. The newly found fossils from China appear to point to an early separation of birds into two distinct lines, one that gave rise to modern birds and another that prospered and diversified until the end of the Cretaceous period, when it became extinct along with dinosaurs.
With virtually no evidence and imaginary theories, what's an evolutionist to do? Does Confuciusornis sanctus prove birds evolved from dinosaurs or does it prove they didn't? As usual, more fossils create more confusion for those writing science fiction fairy tales.
Whether or not that's still going on, there are and will always be areas of controversy in interpreting the fossil record. This arises where the data are sparse and allow different interpretations. In your desperation, you want too much for this. "As long as two scientists somewhere are disagreeing about something, I can say it's all a house of cards and walk away, stroking my prayer wheel."
BTW, had you read the links given, you's know that most scientists concede that Confuciusornis comes too late to be the direct ancestor of modern birds. That doesn't prevent it from providing clues where birds came from. It's clearly a bird and it's clearly got raptorian features lacking in its more modern nephews.
That fossil of an extinct bird species shows what utter fools evolutionists and you are. One group says it proves that modern bird evolved from dinosaurs and another group of evolutionary idiots claim its proof that modern birds didn't evolve from dinosaur. NOTHING PROVES HOW LITTLE CREDIBILITY EVOLUTION HAS THAN Confuciusornis sanctus.
One group of evolutionists claim: Feathered Dinosaurs Found in China Strengthening the link between dinosaurs and birds June 25, 1998 Paleontologists have discovered two new bird-like dinosaurs with rudimentary feathers and many other bird-like features. These finds reinforce the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Although these new species had some form of primitive feather, these feathers were symmetrical in cross-section which made then useless for flight (asymmetry is neccessary to provide lift). The dinosaurs' arm-length was also insufficient for flight. The feathers were probably used as insulation, keeping in body heat. These new dinosaurs Protarchaeopteryx robusta, and Caudipteryx zoui, together with the recently found Sinosauropteryx prima, have characteristics common to both theropod dinosaurs and to birds. All three, plus many specimen of a very primitive bird (Confuciusornis sanctus) were found in the period from 1996 to 1997 in an ancient lake bed in Liaoning Province, in northestern China.
The another group claims: LAWRENCE - Two University of Kansas researchers report that fossils from northeastern China may counter the theory that modern birds are the descendants of dinosaurs.
The findings will be published in the Nov. 15 issue of the prestigious journal Science. The fossil birds from the Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous periods, about 140 million years ago, suggest a long avian history in the Jurassic, according to a team of researchers that includes Larry D. Martin, curator of vertebrate paleontology at the KU Natural History Museum, and Zhonghe Zhou, a student of Martin's. The other scientists on the team are Lianhai Hou of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Alan Feduccia of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
The authors suggest that the ancestor of modern birds arose during the Middle Jurassic period or earlier. "This exacerbates one of the most obvious conundrums facing the theory of dinosaurian origin of birds," they write. The dinosaurs thought to be most like birds are mainly from the Late Cretaceous period, about 76 million years more recent than the oldest fossil bird yet found. The newly found fossils from China appear to point to an early separation of birds into two distinct lines, one that gave rise to modern birds and another that prospered and diversified until the end of the Cretaceous period, when it became extinct along with dinosaurs.
"The discovery that the line leading to modern birds coexisted almost from the earliest occurrence of birds in the fossil record with an archaic group of now-extinct birds is the most important discovery in fossil birds since Archaeopteryx," Martin said. Archaeopteryx was a toothed bird and the first bird discovered to have lived during the Jurassic period.
If those writing the evolutionary fairy tale can't even get the story straight, why should anyone in their right mind believe them?
You need help with any of the big words, let me know.
Nothing proves what a more fraudulent group of jackasses evolutionists are. Evolution is ahead of global warming on the Mad Scientists Lie hall of shame.
For what it's worth, the recent interest in this country in embryo harvesting, cloning, eugenics, and longevity studies has certain similarities with the earlier Frankensteinian monstrosity of the last century.
That was your best shot and evolutionists best shot and it is laughable.
Does it mean birds evolved from dinosaurs or is it clear proof that birds didn't? Answer: Neither. It's a extinct species of bird.
Yes, Confuciusornis is classed as a bird. But it sure has big claws on its forelimbs poking through those wings.
What's Caudipteryx zoui? I've seen it classed as a dinosaur. I've seen it classed as a bird. Why do you think that is?
What's this thing?
You almost snuck one by, there. I posted the fossils. I posted the cretinists bumping into each other, unable to get their story straight what the fossils are.
Your answer is to claim done what none of you have done. Nice try!
| Specimen | Cuozzo (1998) |
Gish (1985) |
Mehlert (1996) |
Bowden (1981) Menton (1988) Taylor (1992) Gish (1979) |
Baker (1976) Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) |
Taylor (1996) Lubenow (1992) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
ER 1813 (510 cc) |
Ape | Ape | Ape | Ape | Ape | Ape |
 |
Java (940 cc) |
Ape | Ape | Human | Ape | Ape | Human |
 |
Peking (915- 1225 cc) |
Ape | Ape | Human | Ape | Human | Human |
 |
ER 1470 (750 cc) |
Ape | Ape | Ape | Human | Human | Human |
 |
ER 3733 (850 cc) |
Ape | Human | Human | Human | Human | Human |
 |
WT 15000 (880 cc) |
Ape | Human | Human | Human | Human | Human |
Where do you get this figure? You can buy fossils in magazines, they're so common. I have a trilobite on my desk. I'd be willing to bet the number of fossils topped 250,000 more than 100 years ago (about the age of the last evolutionary pamphlet you read).
That fossil proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that evolutionists can't figure out a consistent way to manipulated extinct fossils into a coherent theory.
Larry Martin:
"The history of bird evolution is being rewritten right now in China," KU scientist Larry Dean Martin said Wednesday. It's going to change the whole shooting match."
For years, those who study dinosaurs have feuded with scientists such as Martin, who study birds. The issue: Are modern birds descendants of dinosaurs? The dinosaur group believes they are; Martin and others believe they're two different creatures.
"Score one for us," Said Martin (of Confuciusornis sanctus) , who fielded phone calls Wednesday from the New York Times, Time, international science journals and other reporters.
Finding the Confuciusornis--smaller than a crow, but more bird like with its beak and feathers adds credibility to the bird scientists' side of the debate, he said.
"The evidence for birds being dinosaurs has become less and less clear. In my opinion, the coffin on that case is nailed now, and hermetically sealed."
Your best "evidence" for evolution simply proves how incoherent the whole evolutionary fairy tale is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.